|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 14:24:00 GMT
Some gay people will want to marry and some won't just like normal ordinary* people. ...just like normal ordinary other people.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 14:40:40 GMT
Quick synopsis. Denny & Alan, very good friends, drinking, smoking, womanising mates. Denny (older one) diagnosed Alzheimer's, Denny isn't married doesn't have next of kin, and he is concerned about who will manage his affairs as his condition gets worst. Alan is his best mate so they agreed that if they enter a "civil partnership" Alan will be next of kin and be able to make decisions on Denny's behalf - and mentioned in passing when Denny dies Alan will get all his money instead of it going to the government. Straight people have been doing this sort of thing for centuries - it used to be called a marriage of convenience.A power of attorney should ensure that Alan can make decisions on Denny's behalf. A properly drawn up will should ensure that Denny leaves his money to whoever he wants to leave it to. It's true that under such an arrangement Alan would also have rights in any pension Denny was entitled to. But I have never though that anyone, gay or straight, should inherit anyone else's pension. Fair enough in the days when a woman had very little opportunity to earn money of her own - but that's not the case any more.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 14:47:17 GMT
But I assume that whoever is officiating is registered in some way to make the marriage legal? These days, yes. But In medieval Europe, marriage was governed by canon law, which recognised as valid only those marriages where the parties stated they took one another as husband and wife, regardless of the presence or absence of witnesses. It was not necessary, however, to be married by any official or cleric. This institution was cancelled in England with the enactment of "Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act" of 1753, which required that, in order to be valid and registered, all marriages were to be performed in an official ceremony in a religious setting recognised by the state, i.e. Church of England, the Quakers, or in a Jewish ceremony. Any other form of marriage was abolished. Children born into unions which were not valid under the Act would not automatically inherit the property or titles of their parents. For historical reasons, the Act did not apply in Scotland. Consequently, until 1940, it continued to be enough in Scotland for a man and a woman to pledge their commitment to each other in front of witnesses to legalise their marriage. This led to an industry of "fast marriages" in Scottish towns on the border with England; the town of Gretna Green was particularly well known for this. In 1836 the requirement that the ceremony take place in a religious forum was removed, and registrars were given the authority to register marriages not conducted by a religious official.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 14, 2013 15:17:32 GMT
And will you be upgrading, jean? Since Nick now assures us that the CP and marriage are legally identical (which is my argument anyway) why bother? Nick always has assured you of that, Marchesa. That isn't your argument at all - or if it is, you've been arguing with yourself. The argument that you've made in my earshot is that there is a clear difference between civil partnership and marriage - marriage has a special status in society, a status of recognised respect and value, which should gays be allowed to enjoy would be undermined (becuase it depends on the ability to procreate.) So, we're in agreement there's no legal difference - the disagreement is over whether gay people should be excluded from a social institution that confers respect and value to straight people's lifelong relationships of love and commitment. Hence your claim that this is about "faux" equality is groundless - there's nothing "faux" about respect, value and status, by definition.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 14, 2013 15:26:28 GMT
If anyone can tell me of a couple forced to have their marriage annulled against their will because of non-consummation, I'll be very interested. I seem to remember this was Marie Stopes' case when she divorced her first husband - I doubt whether he was very happy about it, but can't remember the details. More convoluted - didn't the case of Henry's annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon hinge on whether she had or had not consummated her marriage with his brother Arthur? Either way she lost, I seem to recall.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 15:32:43 GMT
I'm not sure which was more important - the question of the consummation of Katharine's marriage to Arthur, or the fact that Henry should never have married his deceased brother's wife, and had to be given a papal dispensation to do so, which he suddenly developed qualms about.
But I have never heard of a case where a marriage was annulled unless at least one of the parties wished it.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 15:42:00 GMT
Are you planning to upgrade to "marriage" or has the civil partnership already been put asunder? And will you be upgrading, jean? Are you going to get "married", if that's not too personal an enquity? Congratulations, if so - or if not, for that matter. I never really like answering these questions from the marchesa, because of her notorious propensity to make her own use of any scraps of personal information she can get her hands on. But as Nick has asked nicely, I will try. I regard civil partnership and civil marriage as the same thing under different names, so I wouldn't see any point in doing anything that emphasised the difference. If any church I was associated with decided it would like to preside over a religious marriage, I might consider it, but I would never wish to force them to. OH is a sort of sporadic Unitarian, so there would be an opportunity there. But we have not discussed it.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 14, 2013 15:48:08 GMT
I'm not sure which was more important - the question of the consummation of Katharine's marriage to Arthur, or the fact that Henry should never have married his deceased brother's wife, and had to be given a papal dispensation to do so, which he suddenly developed qualms about. Men, huh? (Are you getting confused by the consort of Henry VIII and Ms. Hepburn, perchance? Lesbians, huh?) Did Abelard and Heloise ever have their marriage annulled?
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 14, 2013 15:53:39 GMT
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the presiding merely consists in the solemnisation of the ceremony. Whatever that means! Something to do with "sacraments". Whatever that means. The upshot is, I think, all you need is someone who has taken orders. And as the CofE recognises the ministers of other faiths...
As a matter of idle curiosity, what's important about a church setting to you?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 15:54:54 GMT
Did Abelard and Heloise ever have their marriage annulled? Only after Abelard had been castrated. Even then, I am not at all sure that that's what Heloise wanted.
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Feb 14, 2013 16:01:22 GMT
Did Abelard and Heloise ever have their marriage annulled? Only after Abelard had been castrated. They did, then? But neither of them would have wanted that, surely? Their romance didn't "end" for many years after, I recall (it's thirty years since I read those letters, mind.) Then Abelard got rather nasty. Men, huh? The castration? If she did, it seems a mite harsh, even for a catholic nun.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Feb 14, 2013 16:04:56 GMT
I may be wrong, but it's my understanding that the presiding merely consists in the solemnisation of the ceremony. Whatever that means!Something to do with "sacraments". Whatever that means. That's right - as I explained: When the C of E controlled everything, its priests were automatically recognised as those whose function it was to preside over marriages (in fact, it's the parties to the marriage themselves who actually perform the marriage). See also the wiki quote above. It wouldn't be the 'setting' exactly - but if I believed in God, I might want to involve Her in some way in what I was doing. And of course I could have much better music.
|
|
Joe K
WH Member
Posts: 608
|
Post by Joe K on Feb 15, 2013 3:08:30 GMT
Have you never heard of equal but different, Marchesa? Joe K - yes, they'll be wanting to marry their dogs next. Give em an inch, eh? It's a measure of the inevitable drift to the right experienced by almost everyone that the sarcasm shtick of the left looks increasingly intellectually bankrupt. Mark Steel being the chief chump. I told him on Twitter that I intended to marry David Cameron because neither gender, marital status or even his consent, should be a restriction. After all, it isn't hurting anyone, is it?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 15, 2013 8:34:36 GMT
My stated view on this matter has always been that civil partnership confers exactly the same legal rights as marriage so what's the beef from gays pretending they are suffering some sort of discrimination? They most certainly are not. It's just a a politically motivated PC campaign about faux "equality". But some people LIKE banging their heads against false walls, don't they? Makes them feel oh-so moral in promoting justice and "progress". Are YOU upgrading, by the way, jean, or are you already divorced? Relationship breakdown - nataliegambleassociates.co.uk www.nataliegambleassociates.co.uk/ Gay & lesbian divorce - leading experts for alternative familiesSome legal beagle clearly sees the necessity to distinguish between ordinary partners and the " alternative" gay variant. And it WILL continue because people KNOW there is a difference between heterosexual and homosexual coupledom no matter how you PC types deny it.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 15, 2013 8:58:53 GMT
Here's what I said in reply to Nick when he clearly WAS claiming that gays were suffering legal discrimination in not being able to be "married" radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=hobnobbing&thread=1534&page=1Again, I would ask you to provide evidence of the effects of the legal "discrimination" you claim uniquely affects the homosexual or the homosexual couple in modern British society.
"Marriage" and "Civil Partnership" patently do not "mean the same thing". But they confer "equal" rights and "equality" is what you seem to be worried about. The argument is clearly about a PC redefinition of the word "marriage" to make it more "inclusive" and not about any purported discrimination, prejudice, injustice or any other emotive buzz word you care to introduce to muddy the waters.
The current definition of marriage as it is understood both legally and colloquially is perfectly adequate and needs no tinkering to bring it into line with the latest PC fad of attempting to spread purported "equality" where none can exist in the interests of a faux notion of social progress.
However we all know that the colloquial uses of words evolve all the time and there is nothing at all preventing people calling homosexual couples "married" if they so wish. So where's the beef?
|
|